The TRUE "Nightmare" Scenario

I'm mad as hell at the GOP, and I have been for years. I've made no secret of my anger and disappointment with what is supposed to be the "conservative" party in this country working overtime to enact a comprehensive agenda of "socialism lite." I'm also quite disappointed in our party's dismal and hamfisted performance in the War Against Being Scared. (Then again, I've gone from being "concerned" in 2001 to "pissed off" in 2006, so perhaps there has been progress.)

Given my own feelings, I can certainly relate to other conservatives and libertarians who are frustrated by and disgusted with the Republican leadership. If I were represented by a RINO, or a member of the current House leadership, I'd probably have a very tough time getting motivated to help out. As it is, I'm fortunate to be represented by some true reformers, and they have my full backing. I don't have to hold my nose to back them, because I really couldn't ask for better representation. If I were living in Denny Hastert's district, or Tom Reynolds' district, I'm sure I'd have a tougher time mustering the energy to care about the fate of either. There is a point that you get to. I'm not there, but I can probably see it from here if I stand on my toes & squint.

Even as angry and frustrated as I am with the party leadership and the GOP as an organization, I'm still cognizant of the fact that there are solid conservatives within the party, and lots of them. I'm also cognizant of the fact that there are few, if any, among the elected Democrats who could even remotely be considered "conservatives." I'd love it if there were more libertarian-minded Republicans, but I suppose you go to war with the party you have, not the party you'd like to have. Given the choice between "crazy/evil" (i.e. Senator Palpatine,) and "stupid/corrupt" (ie., Senator Jar Jar,) I'd still go with the latter.

MORE BELOW THE FOLD

For my part, I'm not willing to attack those who've simply had enough with the GOP as a whole. I don't consider them "cowards," nor do I consider them "petulant crybabies," "naive bedwetters," or whatever. Funny how many people don't hesitate to launch a virtual attack over the internet that they'd never have the balls to do in real life. I think we could all do with a toning down of the rhetoric on this point, and I'd ask other bloggers to think twice before they launch nasty perjoratives at people who agree with them 99% of the time, but aren't 100% on board on this one issue.

For any of you who choose to "stand down" this election, I ask that you thoroughly satisfy yourself that you're fully prepared to face the consequences of Democrat control of the House and/or Senate for at least two years, and possibly more. Think carefully about what that would mean to our country. It probably wouldn't mean any crazy new legislation being signed into law. It might, in fact, mean the absence of any new legislation for a while. It could be complete gridlock in the middle of a significant troop deployment overseas. That could cause a mess.

While understanding the frustration, I'm not sure holding your nose and supporting the GOP this time around necessarily has to equate to a total capitulation to all the corruption and socialist bullshit we've been getting from the party for at least the last six years. For those of you who are, like me, beyond frustrated with the party, you do have the option of getting involved and beginning the slow process of working to change the party from the inside. No, it's not easy, but it can be done.

Speaking of change, I've noticed that some of the party operatives read this blog, and to you I have a suggestion: fear of the Democrats keeps some of the conservatives and libertarians in line, but the most frustrated conservatives and libertarians may not step back into rank without a little lovin' from the party. A message of contrition and a demonstration of commitment to core principles on the part of the party leadership might go a long way toward rebuilding solidarity.

Finally, we've all heard some nightmare scenarios being trotted out, and they're very scary, to be sure. The Dems could certainly cause a lot of noise and trouble given two years in control of even one house of Congress, much less both houses. The worst case scenario would not, however, be for the Democrats to take over and do all the crazy things we're all afraid they might do. Although that would please the Deaniacs and Kossacks to no end, going into full Cynthia McKinney-style "crazy mode" would set the Dems up for political disaster in 2008 at nearly all levels, and virtually guarantee a Republican White House next time around. It would be much worse, in the long term, for the Dems to spend two years legislating with a generally centrist agenda, biding their time, avoiding the real hot-button issues, siding with Bush on some "comprehensive immigration reform" package, etc. etc. That would set them up for further electoral gains in 2008 and a White House win. That, IMHO, is the true "nightmare" scenario, and it's a good bit scarier than any of the other nightmare scenarios being bandied about these days.

7
Take the GOP back from the far-right Christian Conservative element and their intrusive social politics, you'll be amazed at how quickly it'll begin attracting libertarian voters again.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 11, 2006 12:29 AM

8
Yeah, I have to agree with Alex. The RLC doesn't seem to be the vehicle for real reform. A lot of very rational and non-kooky individuals are libertarians. Why do libertarianGROUPS so often attract the kooks?

Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at October 11, 2006 02:37 AM

9
thMtman - I should know better about what? I don't get your comment.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at October 11, 2006 02:39 AM

10
The only way to save the GOP is to purge it of its scumbags like Foley,
its liberals like Bush, and its bumbling, hapless morons like Hastert.
Unfortunately though, men like the Gipper haven't been made for a
while, and the system now ensures that a man like that couldn't get
elected no matter what. Our entire system is corrupt from top to
bottom, and I think a nuke in DC would be the best thing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 11, 2006 07:03 AM

11
You guys are just buying into the hype. Neither party and yet both parties are corrupt. Whether you worship at the alter of an ass or a pachyderm, you are still a political bitch as long as the party means more than the man or woman.

Still here Rooster. Very busy these days.

For those like Rusty who throw up the commitment to voting straight Dem, go ahead. Nothing will change except the direction of mud slinging. Nothing gets done now, and if the Dems take office, nothing will get done then.

Quit bitching about the politics, and vote on the issues. Check the record for the people you want to vote for. See how they vote, and what the voted for and how many times they missed a vote.

One more thing, if you remove the cost of the two wars, and the Medicare drug program, we would be very close to posting a budget surplus. Clinton and his cronies could appreciate that if they were not so busy trying to pull the country down to their level.

the "far christian right" is what we used to call traditional christianity. Just about every conservative who calls himself a christian falls under that category. They outnumber by far the Libertarians.

When the Dems take back their party from the militant atheists watch how many moderates your party will begin to attract again.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 11, 2006 09:11 AM

13
The distinction between the "far-right conservative Christians" andother Christians is a good one to keep in mind. "Christians" and "libertarians"aresometimes discussed as if they were completely distinct groups, but I've always taken issue with the idea of a necessary distinction between "Christian" and "libertarian," as if"Christian" and "libertarian"were mutually exclusive.From what I've studied, Christianity is inherently libertarian. There's certainly a tension between the libertarians and those political Christians who want to seethe government impose their ownreligious beliefson the citizenry. Political Christians who seek federal bans on things because they consider them "non-Christian" do create tension with libertarians. Christians who believe in "live and let live," and believe they should worry about their ownmorality rather than that of their neighbors are themselves "libertarians," and I know a number of Christians who fit that description quite well.

Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at October 11, 2006 10:22 AM

14
the "far christian right" is what we used to call traditional christianity.

Not really, JC. Compare the current crop of "Christians" with Christian movements of the recent past, such as MLK's Southern Christian Leadership Council, and I think you'll note a vast difference in goals, agendas and objectives. The latter strike me as vastly more sincere, even though very political.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 11, 2006 04:21 PM

15
When the Dems take back their party from the militant atheists watch how many moderates your party will begin to attract again.

You are correct -- time for a good purging of extremists in both camps; I think moderates of all political persuasions are finally getting tired of gridlock and fighting for the pure sake of winning, while the business of the peopel pretty much gets ignored.

Posted by: Gleep! at October 11, 2006 04:24 PM

16
"if you remove the cost of the two wars, and the Medicare drug program, we would be very close to posting a budget surplus. Clinton and his cronies could appreciate that if they were not so busy trying to pull the country down to their level"

You are going to have to show some realnumbers if you want to make wild accounting claims like that! Bush has grown the gov over 20% not counting war, medicare , etc. and borrowed near 4 trillion from China. I guess it doesn't matter as long as you get that Clinton pot shot in there.

Posted by: tbone at October 11, 2006 04:35 PM

17
Remove the cost of the wars. That is around 100 bil plus the odd spending addition of around 20-30 extra which will be requested, the overall overhead of running a regular force that big which is not part of the war budget, 200,000 personel, pluse equipment and ammo which would have been used in regular exercises, you can figure, 30 bil. We are 130 bil. The deficit is at 240? That leaves 110 bil. What about the money we send to the Paki's, SA, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey and even Russia? All meant to keep them on our side. All part of the cost of the war. Purely speculative. No less as ethereal than your 4 tril claim which is just stupid.

And yes, I did throw the Clinton shot in because it felt good. What about it?

You will need to show some more evidence of the four Tril if you want to call me out and save some face dude. That is a stupidly big number.